r?Afff~~RS FOR

NOVEMBER 1992

r?Afff~~RS FOR ~fNJV~ROfNJM~fNJ1TAl r?RO~R~SS:

A fNJ~W M~SS~OfNJ FOR 1TfM~ CORfPS

fae HON:NAT 1992 W445

NR693 HONORS THESIS

Dr. JOHN F. DISINGER

By TERRI WEIMER School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University

NOVEMBER 1992

Partners for Environmental Progress: a New Mission for the Corps

By Terri Weimer School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University

ABSTRACT

In May of 1990 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers embarked on a new initiative designed

to meet the country's aging environmental infrastructure needs and increasing regulatory

and environmental requirements. This new program has been coined Partners for

Environmental Progress, or PEP. PEP focuses on the restoration of a variety of

environmental quality support services, including water supply, wastewater treatment,

solid waste management, and waste-to-energy generation programs. Through PEP the

Corps joins with a local entity, or Sponsor, to produce a Market Feasibility Study

(MFS). The MFS is devised to determine opportunities for, and to encourage the

inception of environmental infrastructure privatization. During fiscal year (FY) 1992,

the Army Corps began thirteen PEP projects, each to be completed in November of that

year. During the summer of 1992, I spent time working with the PEP project manager at

the Huntington District. Many inadequacies related to the management of a particular

project became apparent to me. This thesis focuses on these problems and offers a few

suggestions to enhance future projects in this promising new program.

Introduction

Beyond serving as the engineering,

construction, and research and

development crew for the Nation's

Army and Air Force, the Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) is authorized to

manage and execute national Civil

Works programs as they relate to the

country's waterways (Fed Reg 1986). This manual also outlines the federal

Civil Works hierarchy (Figure 1).

Serving under the President of the

United States in the Defense

Department is the Secretary of the

Army. The Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works) reports to the

Secretary. The Director of Civil Works

is then seated under the Assistant

Secretary. And, the person directly

responsible for the management of the

Corps is the Chief of Engineers. He or

she takes orders from the Director of

Civil Works. Under the Chief are

eleven Division Engineers. Each

Division is divided into Districts: the

boundaries of which are illustrated in

the Sponsors' Partnership Kit, a packet

distributed by the Corps (Figure 2). This

pamphlet shows that the Huntington District lies within the Ohio River

Division. As indicated in this

2 WEIMER--PEP: A NEW MISSION FOR 1HE CORPS

document, each District is once again

divided into Divisions which are then separated into Branches (Figure 3). At

the Huntington District the PEP program is managed by John Yeager, an economist in the Resource Evaluation

Branch of the Planning Division.

On May 22, 1990, the Corps presented PEP, and the need for such a program to the American public through Corps Facts No. 8 (a public relations fact sheet). Without doubt, the environmental foundation upon which

the continuance and growth of our communities depend is crumbling. The Corps established PEP to encourage and facilitate privatization as a means of upgrading these deteriorating support services.

Several continuing factors have

adversely affected public ownership of

these environmental services. Included in this list of obstacles is the growing Federal deficit. This restriction has spurred a reduction in the Federal grants currently available to local governments for such programs. All across the nation there are wastewater treatment facilities, water supply systems and municipal solid waste facilities that have not been upgraded in the past ten, 20 even 30 years. Meanwhile, growing urban and

suburban populations continue to place increased demands on community support services. These problems,

propelled by the race for environmental regulatory compliance, have left many communities entangled in a web of

increasing regulations, while they find themselves with less funding to make

the necessary improvements.

According to the fact sheet, in 1988 then Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Robert W. Page began

working toward the development of

this new initiative, PEP. Through the years he maintained his vision of the Corps' role in helping communities alleviate these burdens through privatization. Through this mechanism

the Corps would help communities explore the potential for private

ownership, operation and I or

maintenance of facilities which serve

the public. The program was intended to focus on small communities that lack the financial backing and the technical expertise to formulate a credible plan. A plan that could ensure a sound investment for the private entity. Although the Corps' role encompasses only the production of a market feasibility study, that is the critical first step on the road towards privatization.

By 1991 the program gained

NOVEMBER 1992 3

funding. The new initiative has been

authorized and monies appropriated

through 1994 by the Energy and Water

Development Appropriations

(USACE 1991 and Dorn 1992).

Act

The

House Report accompanying the

original legislation stated: "Development of a Federal

Infrastructure Strategy: The Committee has increased the budget for Special Studies by $650,000 to be used in pursuing opportunities for providing local infrastructure facilities. The Committee intends the Department of the Army to work .. .in partnership with State and local governments." (From HR no. 101.536 p22) Initially, the Committee intended

the Corps to work in cooperation with the other Federal agencies as well. At

the time of authorization it was

assumed that various agencies could

easily intertwine their relative

privatization programs into a single

working system. However, as the

programs are currently administered

this union is not yet feasible.

The Corps' privatization program is outlined in an internal memo titled:

Guidelines for Market Feasibility Studies (MFS) Part of Partners for Environmental Progress (PEP) Program. This document details the program

beginning with the purpose and

authorization. The memo then

indicates that the Districts are to notify

communities of the program's benefits

and its limitations. When an eligible community contacts a District to form a

partnership, a MFS Agreement between the Corps and the Sponsor is written to define the scope of studies. This

Agreement specifies the objective of the

study and the roles and responsibilities

of each party. This section of the

Agreement indicates that, for the most

part, the Sponsor will be responsible for

gathering the necessary data and

supplying it to the Corps. It is the Corps' responsibility to analyze the data and

provide the results in a MFS.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note

that the Agreement stipulates that

"neither party is to be considered the agent, officer or employer of the other"

(USACE 1992).

Finally, a proposal is prepared and

presented to a Technical Review Team

(TRT) at the Huntsville Division office. The review panel must consider, among other issues, the limitations of the PEP program. Unlike most Corps programs,

this program has been authorized with

rather definite limitations of both time

and funding. To conserve funds within the program each project is limited to just $100,000 of Federal funding.

4 WEIMER--PEP: A NEW MISSION FOR THE CORPS

Furthermore, the criteria upon which

the candidate proposals are ranked

considers cost effectiveness. The review panel generally awards a higher rank to

the studies of lower cost. Incidentally,

the most expensive PEP project

conducted by the Huntington District

incurred a cost of only 50,000 Federal

dollars. And, as much as time is money,

each project must be completed no later than one year after the contractual agreement is signed by both parties. The

primary restrictions of time and money limit the number of national projects

that can be authorized in any given year.

In 1992 fourteen demonstration projects

were selected for study, according to a

memorandum distributed by the Director of Civil Works, Arthur E.

Williams.

It is the purpose of this thesis to

review the PEP process as it was

conducted at the Huntington District

office. I will focus on the problems

encountered and suggest methods of

improvement that can be achieved

through enhanced communication and

resource efficiency.

The Central Ohio Dilemma

The Huntington District submitted five proposals for the PEP program in

FY 1992. Nationally, 31 proposals were

presented to the Technical Review Team (TRT) of which 14 were funded

(Williams 1992). Of those 14, three were

presented by the Huntington District.

This District is unique in that it

confronted the widest range of

privatization issues. Together, the three

projects addressed all the infrastructure

needs outlined in the national plan.

Huntington was the only district to initiate wastewater treatment, water supply, solid waste management and

waste-to-energy generation projects all

in the first year. The projects also

encompassed a variety of locality types.

The wastewater project was sponsored

by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. For

this project team conducted a reconnaissance study of a 12-county

region with a population of only

333,000. Marion County, Ohio asked the

District to assist it in solving the

problem of water supply in that county

of low density. And finally, Huntington

addressed the issues of solid waste and

waste-to-energy generation in the large,

metropolitan region of Columbus, Ohio.

This single city has a population

approaches one millon (Christian 1991). Incidentally, this Central Ohio solid waste proposal was ranked at the top of the review committee's list. It was

given the highest priority of the 14 projects chosen (Williams 1992).

NOVEMBER 1992 5

For this study, I will focus my

attention on the latter project. The

dilemma presented by the Central Ohio

project was outlined in the PEP proposal

that Mr. Yeager sent to the TRT. In

recent years numerous laws,

amendments and resolutions have

spun a complex web around the

business of solid waste management

(EPA 1989) (Figure 4). To help untangle

this jumble of regulations the City of

Columbus drafted Resolution Number

206X 91 on November 9, 1991 "to urge

the immediate and mutual cooperation

between the City and the [Solid Waste

Authority of Central Ohio]" (formerly

the Franklin County Regional Solid

Waste Management Authority). At the

time the Authority owned the county

landfill and the City owned the Solid

Waste Reduction Facility (SWRF), a

trash burning power plant. This split

ownership lead to competition between

the two entities. For instance, in order

to meet the compliance requirements

for the aforementioned regulations the

Authority was forced to increase

restrictions and tipping fees (the dollar

amount charged per load of waste

dumped) for all haulers, including the

City (Powers 1992a). Meanwhile, the

City was encountering ever more

serious problems at the SWRF, some of

which were life threatening. Numerous

incidents of hazardous substances

entering the waste shredding facilities

and the trash burning facility had

resulted in explosions. The explosions,

combined with the constant disputes

about the operation of the landfill,

prompted the Columbus City Council to

pen a resolution. The Council insisted

that the City and the Authority " resolve

operational and safety issues at the

SWRF", and it declared this issue an

emergency (Council 1991).

Resolution 206X 91 indicated that

the City might one day transfer its

SWRF over to the Authority. In light of

this, the Council urged all entities

involved in the Franklin County solid

waste process to cooperate with the

Authority, and to provide it with their

recommendations. The Council also

requested that the City, in cooperation

with the Authority, draft "a long term

plan that would include separation,

recycling and elimination of hazardous

materials from Columbus/Franklin

County trash flow in the most cost

effective manner by conducting a

state-of-the-art review of the industry

for what system or systems best fit the

Authority's jurisdiction". This master

plan, which is required by the Ohio EPA

pursuant to HB 592, became the basis of

this PEP project (Yeager 1991 ).

To meet the sum of requirements


set by the various Federal and State laws reliable energy source. And, the

the Authority determined that some

type of Front-End-Separator (FES)

should be installed (Figure 5). A FES

does just that: it is a large, mostly

mechanical device that separates and

shreds waste as it enters the SWRF. The FES will divide the waste stream into

many components: shreddable, easily

burnable, non-burnable, yard waste,

construction debris, hazardous waste

and recyclable materials {Powers 1992b).

Again, the purpose of the SWRF is to

reduce the amount of waste reaching the landfilL In the process of reducing

the city's waste to fly ash the facility produces energy. However, due to

frequent shutdowns caused by the

introduction of hazardous materials

into the incinerator, the energy supply

was never consistent. Furthermore, due

to the variable nature of the solid waste

stream coupled with the fact that the

waste was minimally sorted the City was not in compliance with the Clean Air

Act. A FES promised to solve all these

problems. A FES would enable the plant operator to remove hazardous

materials, and thus reduce toxic air

emissions. It would also enhance

sorting. The proper mix of waste materials is necessary to produce an

efficient burn, thus creating a more

recovery of recyclable and compost

materials could lead to a significant

profit for the operator. The only

question that remained was which

system should the City and the

Authority recommend to their constituents.

The purpose of the Franklin County

Market Feasibility Study (MFS) was

two-fold (Yeager 1991). First, it was

necessary to define the requirements of a

FES system for this particular metropolis. This study would

determine how much of which waste materials are available in the county's

waste stream. This information would

allow the Sponsor to choose the proper

system. The second goal was to develop

an implementation strategy that focused

on various privatization options. The

different options were based on varying

ratios of public and private investment,

ownership, and operational

responsibilities. In this step a Request for Proposal (RFP) is produced. The RFP

indicates what the Sponsor wants in terms of privatization, and what they

have to offer in terms of resources (USACE 1991). The completed RFP

enables the Sponsor to solicit and accept

bids on the proposed project.

To accomplish these goals it was

NOVEMBER 1992 7

necessary for the Huntington team to

immerse themselves in the world of

solid waste. The team consisted of two

individuals: John Yeager, the project

manager, and Dr. Gregg Davis, a

professor from Marshall University.

Both men were employed as economists

and neither was particularly familiar

with the subject of solid waste

management. To facilitate their

introduction the Agreement stated that

no more than seven tours were to be

planned by the Sponsor to various

FES-assisted solid waste facilities around

the country. Only two tours were

attended by either of the team members,

due to scheduling conflicts. Therefore,

the team's knowledge in this field was

based solely on those two facility tours,

and all that could be gleaned from trade

magazines (Yeager 1992). Suffice it to

say, their analysis of the situation rested

on this brief and, in my opinion,

inadequate introduction to the complex

world of solid waste management.

Of the three projects coordinated by

the Huntington District I chose to focus

on the Franklin County study for a

number of reasons. Most importantly,

this project exposed the difficulties of

working with a multi-party Sponsor.

The efficiency of this project relied on

the coordination of five entities (Figure

6). The partnership was founded by the

Corps and Sponsor. In this case the

Sponsor included two entities: the Solid

Waste Authority of Central Ohio and

the City of Columbus (the future and

current owners of the Solid Waste

Reduction Facility). In addition, the

Authority hired two consulting firms to

collect data, R.W. Beck of Denver,

Colorado and Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. of

Columbus, Ohio. Due to the extensive

network of people representing different

organizations this project demonstrated

that it is imperative to quickly establish

strong, reliable means of

communication. The Central Ohio

project also revealed the need to

document and enforce roles of

responsibility when dealing with so

many entities. And finally, a most

intriguing point was addressed by this

project. This study challenged the

traditional role of the Corps. This

agency is attempting to establish a new

mission beyond water resource issues,

that of environmental steward.

Therefore, along with suggestions for

improvement, this study poses the

questions: Are representatives of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared

to confront the issues particular to solid

waste management?, and Should the

Corps become a leader in the battle for

environmental protection?


Problems and Suggestions

Suggestions for improved project

management techniques, focusing on

the clarification of responsibilities, are

outlined in this part of my review. More

efficient use of all available resources

would also improve the effectiveness of

the program. Available resources

include human resources, as well as

informational resources. Accordingly,

improved project management coupled

with improved means of efficiency

could turn PEP into a model Federal

program.

The most important suggestions I

can give stem from my observation of

difficulties experienced with the Columbus project. The difficulties of

coordinating multiple parties in a

productive partnership became the basis

of most of the obstacles encountered in

this study. In all, there were five

entities involved in this one PEP

project. Under these circumstances, it

was not surprising to discover that the

Corps was presented with conflicting data on some occasions, and at other times they could not seem to get enough

information. It seems that the separate

entities were unaware of what the others were doing. Ultimately, little

unity was demonstrated between the

members of the Sponsor group, or for that matter between the Corps and the

Sponsor.

This project demonstrated the need

to itemize, in the Agreement, exactly

what information is expected from the

Sponsor, when it is needed, and to

emphasize the need for group

agreement prior to the release of any information to the Corps. To

accomplish this level of cohesion, the

various entities of a Sponsor group

must remain in close contact with one

another, and through a spokesperson

they must develop strong lines of communication with the Corps.

Frequent meetings between the

Corps and the Sponsor would benefit

their relationship. To ensure that

regular meetings take place they should

be scheduled well in advance, even

written into the Agreement. These

meetings would greatly enhance the

exchange of information and provide

each party with periodic status reports. It

is important that each entity supply the others with the information that they

will be presenting--prior to the meeting. This will give each side time to review the material and formulate questions in advance. Other contributions of each

entity, including funds spent on consulting firms, should also be made available for review. Quantifying the

NOVEMBER 1992 9

contributions of each party is the

responsibility of the Corps Project

Manager. Making this information

available at the scheduled meetings

would keep all members abreast of

where they stand and the progress of the

project as a whole. By presenting this

information along with a task schedule

(Figure 7), the responsibilities of each

group could be clearly expressed, and all

members would be gently reminded to

complete their tasks in a timely fashion.

Authority resulted in wasted time and

money. It also spawned additional

frustration felt by the Corps team towards the Sponsor. By keeping the

Corps team up to date on all actions that

might affect the project the two entities

can maintain a positive, progressive

relationship. Showing respect for every

members contributions will reassure all

involved that each party holds this

project in the highest regard.

Prearranged meetings would also

The Columbus project has help to maintain a high degree of

demonstrated that it is necessary to

highlight another seemingly obvious

requirement that serves to enhance the

efficiency of any study. If the Sponsor

enacts a plan that would greatly alter the

results of the PEP study, they must

inform the Corps team as soon as

possible. In the Central Ohio case the

Authority did just that: without

considering the ramifications of its

actions on the PEP study a new recycling

plan was initiated. Meanwhile, the

Corps team continued its study unknowingly working with "old" data. A community-wide recycling plan would change the amount of recoverable materials entering the FES,

and thus reduce the profit available to

the FES operator, public or private. This disregard for the Corps' efforts by the

communication among the members of

the Sponsor group. Once the

Agreement between the Corps and the

Sponsor is signed, the members of the

Sponsor group should meet to sign an

agreement amongst themselves.

Knowing what is expected by the Corps

and when it is due they can now plan

their own meetings to precede those

scheduled with the Corps.

At this time the group should

decide on the agenda of each meeting,

and most importantly they must delegate a project manager of their own.

The various entities must be aware of what is to be accomplished at each meeting. This could be accomplished in

a three-step process. First, immediately

following each meeting the members should be informed of the agenda for


the upcoming meeting via mail or fax.

At least two weeks prior to the meeting,

they should be expected to mail the

information that they plan to present to

the project manager. Finally, it should

be this person's responsibility to collate

the information and make it available

to the remaining members. Providing

an opportunity for the members to

review the information prior to the

meeting will facilitate decision making. In many instances, more than one

member of the sponsor group is

prepared to furnish the Corps with a

requested set of information. At these

times it is important for the Sponsor to

demonstrate unity amongst its

members. This review process will keep

everyone informed of what the others have to offer. Allowing them, as a

group, to define one, comprehensive

data set unencumbered by conflicting

information. It would then be the

project manager's responsibility to

deliver this final data set to the Corps. Having presented the proper information in a timely manner the

project is more likely to proceed efficiently.

The following suggestion is directed

towards the Corps side of the project. I recommend that great emphasis be placed on the efficient use of human

resources. A Corps team consisting of a particular cast of character roles would

expedite the completion of the PEP

projects. These members should have

varying titles including: economist,

contract specialist, graphic artist,

environmental engineer, computer

specialist, communications specialist,

regional planner, and environmental

scientist. Each of these eight persons

won't be needed on a daily basis for each project, but each should be available

when needed. (The team members

could even be "loaners" from other

branches within the District.) To assure

the availability of each member, a task

schedule should be constructed once the

Agreement is signed (Figure 7). This

schedule would indicate when each portion of the study is due and whose

assistance will be necessary to achieve

the established goals. Thus, the table

will coordinate the schedules of the

team within a project, between PEP projects, and even between Branches.

To organize this intricate schedule

will require a leader who expresses

exemplary organizational skills, as well

as a strong desire to manage the PEP projects. It is also necessary that the

individual understand the different aspects of each project, as well as which of the members is best suited to provide the required information. When an

NOVEMBER 1992 11

environmental scientist is available, I

would suggest that he or she be awarded

the position of PEP Project Manager. Of

all the members, this person is the most

likely to have the educational

experiences and/ or training which

encompasses elements of each of the

other's expertise. This training enables

the environmental scientist to realize

what capabilities can be expected of each

of the members. The environmental

scientist also should have the most

complete knowledge of environmental

infrastructure facilities, the problems

inherent to each, and the laws

regulating them. In the beginning it

may not seem cost effective to have a

team of so many players. However, the

efficiency of a well organized group

armed with the necessary expertise will

undoubtedly prove most effective. By

maintaining a highly compatible group

over the years, a District will be able to

complete additional projects with each

passing fiscal year.

Furthermore, when the budget is

tight, it is not necessary to hire eight

different employees. Many people have

highly diversified backgrounds. Take

advantage of the engineer's drafting

skills for needed graphics, or the

economist who is also a computer whiz.

Another beneficial characteristic to

consider when building a team is

consulting experience. First-hand

knowledge of how the private sector

works cannot be taught in a training

seminar. Even more importantly,

previous experience, knowledge and

concern for environmental issues must

be stressed. For the Corps to prove it is

"Environmentally Friendly" it must

have a highly credible work force

executing its environmental goals.

Thorough understanding of

environmental infrastructure is vital:

undertaking a PEP project without this

expertise could prove a serious error.

Untimely setbacks as knowledge is

gained, and even evaluation errors, may

result if a high level of understanding is

not made a primary importance.

Still, the Corps as an agency must

demonstrate the significance of this

program to the PEP Project Managers. By

limiting the Managers to only PEP

projects, and by increasing the total

number of team members a sense of

priority will be experienced. Hence, a

higher level of efficiency can be

maintained.

Once the Corps-Sponsor

relationship is established and the Corps

team is coordinated, it may prove

beneficial to contact representatives of other governmental agencies. As

mentioned earlier, PEP was designed to


bring together the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and the Corps to solve these infrastructure dilemmas through coordination of similar programs mandated for each

agency. This quickly proved too cumbersome because the alternate

programs were not as similar as they first appeared. Adding the fact that Federal agencies are none too eager to work together (Petulla 1987), it is not surprising to find that the plan to

coordinate various privatization programs was dropped. The difficulties of the Columbus project exemplified the merits of this decision. The total number of entities must, at some point, be limited for the sake of efficiency.

Considering the difficulties

experienced while attempting to

coordinate multiple entities, and

weighing them against the benefits of a coordinated interagency effort, I suggest

that the privatization programs of the various agencies be integrated only through a well-devised plan. The expertise available from these other Federal agencies is undeniable. To take full advantage of this expertise, interagency consultations could be scheduled in the Agreement. H another agency holds some regulatory or permit function over the future PEP project, it

is essential for the Corps to consult with

that agency in the planning stage. By maintaining a working relationship with the privatization representatives of other agencies, important issues could

be addressed before a project is finalized.

Strong networks should be developed

for the exchange of this vital information. Such networks have already been organized with other agencies and these relationships greatly

facilitate various project types that the Corps currently conducts. Again, it is all

about using the available resources in a wise and efficient manner.

The PEP reports themselves can also become a valuable resource. The final reports should be compiled annually for

review by the public to encourage privatization with limited federal

assistance. Other communities, that for

one reason or another are not chosen to participate in the program could utilize

these reports as guidelines to produce their own Market Feasibility Studies (MFS). If they decide that privatization could solve their problems, they should continue the process by preparing Request for Proposals to entice private business, thereby effecting privatization on their own means. Also, entrepreneurs, as well as established businesses--neither of which are

NOVEMBER 1992 13

currently eligible--could find the private a businessperson could ask necessary incentive to enter the another about the benefits of investing

environmental infrastructure business

by reviewing other MFS's. By relating the circumstances of their own situation

they may discover a profitable new

business venture in infrastructure

investments. In this case, two steps in

the process would be eliminated. Instead of a community searching for the right

company, the company could find the community, with minimal Federal

assistance. Finally, other Districts could

benefit from previous PEP reports, not

to mention reports from other agencies.

One of the most effective efficiency

techniques is learning from the mistakes and accomplishments of

others. There is no need to stumble

through the forest when another has

just cleared a path.

To further improve this

efficiency-by-review process the Project

Manager should be accessible to

managers of infrastructure facilities for

clarification or redirection. The

Managers should realize that as a civil servant it is their duty to help those in need of their expertise, regardless of the

presence or lack thereof of a formal agreement. Likewise, it would be

beneficial if communities could ask

questions of previous Sponsors, or if

in environmental infrastructure.

Because it is understood that the

amount of in-depth questioning would

have to be limited sources should be

released for further research. Still, a

little advice might be all that is needed to spur privatization without Federal

funding.

The most useful product that might

stem from such a compilation of

privatization reports would be a

step-by-step plan to walk the PEP team

briskly through the process towards

completion. Such a plan could be pulled from those projects that have

proven to be most efficient and the most

effective. The Corps has already made

available a set of generic "RFP"

guidelines for the three types of study

covered by PEP. However, the majority

of the PEP team's time is spent in the

process of data collection and analysis.

A guide to quicken this portion of the

project would only function to further increase the efficiency. At most, it would mean preparing three plans (wastewater, water supply and solid waste): a number that is easily

accommodated. The Corps has

"streamlined" other programs by using

this "cookie cutter" technique. If PEP is


to continue in an efficient manner a solid set of guidelines would prove invaluable.

Some may argue the step-by-step

approach to be a setback. It could give some the impression that with the

guidelines in hand, anyone could perform such a simple task, and that a highly skilled team is not necessary. I would like to refute that theory. As I explained earlier, it is important that all members of the PEP team be highly knowledgeable in the areas of

environmental infrastructure. Without some experience even the most intelligent person could have trouble

simply understanding the language. On the other· hand, qualified representatives will be able to identify problems surrounding the current

system and communicate means to upgrade. Considering community size,

future development, applicable laws, and the resource base a skilled team will

be able to suggest the benefits of the

different upgrade systems that are currently available. Hence, a plan outlining what tasks must be completed in order to develop a MFS and RFP could be followed efficiently only by people with the proper background in environmental infrastructure. The plan would become a means to reassure the PEP team and the Sponsor that all

aspects are being covered in a timely and efficient manner.

And finally, I would like to address

the potential benefits of the PEP

program to the Army Corps of Engineers as a Federal agency. PEP could become a great public relations tool at a time when the government and the Corps aren't looking too "green". Gaining public trust by

showing that the Corps is willing to listen to community needs and to take

part in providing improvements will greatly enhance the tarnished image of this large agency. Such a change in attitude could be facilitated through the PEP projects. Even though the Corps essentially becomes an impartial third party, it can be credited with conducting

the study and effecting positive environmental change, while it incurs

no obligation to provide funding for the actual upgrade. Meanwhile, through

privatization, the Federal government is relieved of funding one more infrastructure facility. As an added benefit, there are no Federal production delays involved: the private world is capable of instituting change much more quickly than the public sector. Undertaken in an efficient manner, the program can only reflect positively on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

NOVEMBER 1992 15

CONCLUSIONS

In 1988, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Robert W. Page, envisioned the Corps helping

(Reilly 1991). The two agencies planned to work togetl).er in executing their separate programs; therefore, both programs focused on the same three media areas initially outlined by the P3

communities shed the burden of program. When the "united" plan deteriorating environmental support facilities (USACE 1990a). Privatization

dissolved, the Corps' focus remained unchanged. PEP maintained water

was the key. In keeping with the supply, wastewater and solid waste as its Assistant Secretary's vision, Lieutenant General H.J. Hatch, upon becoming Chief of Engineers, put together a promotional pamphlet that was distributed to all Corps employees. The booklet, entitled Our Vision, was designed to be "a roadmap for direction, a framework for action, and a guideline for how to operate". In it the Chief included a new statement under the section titled Our Pledge. He vowed to "seek a broader role in developing, managing, maintaining, and repairing our Nation's infrastructure."

In May 1990, the Corps presented Partners for Environmental Progress to the public as "Infrastructure Opportunities for Privatization"(USACE 1990a). This new program was modelled after a similar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EP A) program. In 1989 the EPA ran a number of demonstration projects under its Public-Private Partnership Initiative (P3)

main areas of interest.

Now the question is asked by the current Assistant Secretary (Civil Works), Nancy Dorn: Should the Corps be dealing with the problems of solid waste? Based upon recommendations provided by the TRT, and a status review meeting that she held with the Director of Civil Works Ms. Dorn formulated her answer. In a memorandum written by her to the Director of Civil Works she commented

on the continuation of the program. The Assistant Secretary of the Army has determined that, although she can point out no immediate benefit to the agency, since it does provides significant benefits to the communities PEP should be allocated funds through FY 1994. However, her letter stated that the program would be funded only on a conditional basis. Dorn indicated that the Corps should no longer deal with solid waste issues. The project managers were to concentrate on small


and disadvantaged communities. qualified to prepare a valuable study. Furthermore, she wrote that funds would be cut unless the program proved

itself. If privatization does not result

from the majority of projects or if

interest wanes, PEP will be cancelled. The Official Mission of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers provides

significant justification for these conclusions. Traditionally, the Corps

has been dedicated to developing,

managing, and protecting the water resources of this nation. However, it has been noted by Clarke and McCool in

Staking Out the Terrain that "the Corps rarely turns down an opportunity to

expand its horizons". In recent years,

the Corps has searched the horizons of environmenal infrastructure dilemmas for a means to expand. Perhaps this is

an indication that the Corps should

reevaluate its mission as most other agencies do every few years. Still, it is

the EPA that is currently directed by

Congress to regulate pollution in the areas of air, water, and solid waste, to name a few (Lesko 1986).

Therein lies the conflict surrounding the Central Ohio project. On one hand, we find the Corps not only willing to confront many environmental infrastructure issues, but also armed with the manpower

Granted, the Corps' representatives may currently lack the desired infrastructure

experience. With limited time and

effort, the highly adaptable

representatives of this agency could soon aquire the necessary knowledge.

The Corps is known for its ability to excel in the face of any new challenge.

Furthermore, the changing atmosphere

of national policies should not be

overlooked. Now that the cold war has ended, the Corps' Defense spending is being reduced. Traditional Civil Works projects are also on the decline for this agency. Only operations and

maintenance projects have remained

stable. Clearly, the Corps has a vested

interest in expanding its horizons simply to stay in business.

On the other hand sits a purely

regulatory agency, the EPA. It is a

youthful, yet quickly expanding agency with a "mission so broad that it is

supposed to control everything" (Clarke and McCool 1985) from noise pollution to radiation. Still, as overburdened as it may be, this agency clearly houses the expertise needed to advise communities on environmental infrastructure

upgrades. The EPA may not be as refined, nor as respected as the Corps for its management techniques, but it may be in the best position to advise on

NOVEMBER 1992 17

issues that it currently regulates. In conclusion, this problem of overlapping interests and missions must be dealt with before the number of privatization programs increase.

Prior to April 30, 1992, only three Federal agencies (Corps, EPA and DoE) had initiated privatization programs. However on that date, President Bush

issued Executive Order #12803 "urging the ... review ... of federally financed infrastructure assets owned by state and local governments ... and to assist...in their efforts to privatize". This means many more agencies will soon be entering the business of encouraging privatization. The difficulties of dealing with just two agencies that maintain overlapping interests has already been identified. Before additional agencies and departments are brought into the picture, roles of responsibility must be defined. In an effort to increase efficiency it would seem most logical to have those armed with the necessary expertise combat the infrastructure dilemmas that clearly fall within their realms. For instance, it seems logical that the EPA should deal mainly with projects that focus on pollution control and abatement. Likewise, it seems that the Corps should limit its scope to solving only water resource problems.

Though Corps' traditional mission is to manage and execute water resource development projects, as an agency it definitely qualified to take on other responsibilities of an environmental steward. Realizing its intention to broaden its mission in the specific area of environmental infrastructure, and having concluded that at this time it is

unable to supply the expertise needed to fully analyze all these problems, some other vital role must be available for this competent agency. It is my suggestion that the Corps serve as manager of a Federal Program Clearinghouse Committee. Clearly such a role will be necessary to effectively organize the forthcoming multitude of privatization programs. And, it should

be pursued as an interagency effort. However, as an agency with nearly a century of managerial experience in the Civil Works arena the Corps seems the best suited agency to head this committee.

A Federal Program Clearinghouse Committee could help prospective sponsors gain assistance with infrastructure privatization projects. Such an integrated system could coordinate all the various agencies involved in privatization programs. Considering the type of infrastructure, sponsor qualifications, and the

18 WEIMER-PEP: A NEW MISSION FOR THE CORPS

appropriately identified regulating agencies the Committee could direct the sponsor to the agency that is most qualified to provide the needed assistance. Even without the Assistant Secretary's orders, this panel would likely eliminate the Corps' work on solid waste projects and other such infrastructure dilemmas that are inconsistent with the agency's mission. PEP representatives of the Corps who have previously dealt with solid waste projects undoubtedly feel competent to do so again. However, it is unlikely that, with just one year of experience, they could be as qualified as the representatives of the EPA to deal with such issues. True efficiency means allowing the experts to do the work. The most efficient system will assure that our Nation's communities receive the best advice, hence the greatest chance to accomplish privatization of their environmental infrastructure facilities. With the Corps at the helm, this ship of privatization programs is likely to ride the waves into a calm bay of organizational efficiency.

SUMMARY

In summary, the privatization process that I have proposed will begin at the District offices of each agency that

conducts such a program. Each District will assemble a team of highly qualified members. Once a team is assembled, the District will notify the communities within its jurisdiction of the program. Interested communities should be instructed to contact the Corps managed Program Clearinghouse Committee. The members of this Committee will review the projects submitted by the prospective Sponsors and direct those that are eligible to the proper agency. (Those that are not eligible will be requested to review past privatization reports.) The Clearinghouse Committee will then notify the agency of the community's interest in their respective program.

If the Corps is the appropriate agency to assist a community, a meeting will take place to discuss the scope of studies.

On an annual basis each Corps team will present PEP proposals to the Technical Review Team {TRT) in Huntsville, Alabama. Upon review, the TRT will then choose a given number of projects relative to the FY budget. Those communities that are chosen to participate will be contacted immediately by their District office.

The new partners of each PEP project will then meet to formulate an Agreement. In a week-long meeting they will discuss the goals and objectives

NOVEMBER 1992 19

of the project. Together, the partners

will itemize the responsibilities of each

party and devise a schedule of future

must work diligently to maintain open lines of communication. And, they

must keep the others informed of

meetings. Once this is done it is advancements made that may alter the

important to formulate a task schedule to indicate when particular items are due and which members are responsible for their completion. At this time, the

Sponsor group must meet to choose their its project manager, and to devise its own schedule of meetings and a task schedule. Accordingly, each meeting between the Corps and the Sponsor and among the Sponsor members should be preceded by a review period. Most importantly, both parties must take

reponsibility to ensure that the project is completed in an efficient and professional manner. For instance,

members must be prepared to attend the regularly scheduled meetings. They

outcome of the project. To be concise, the members of the PEP projects must work together as a team to efficiently complete the task at hand.

As stated by Ms. Dorn, the future of the PEP program is dependent on the outcome of the current projects. If they are not conducted in a manner befitting the importance of the task the program will be ineffective, then cancelled. This will result not only in the loss of

projects for Corps employees nationwide, but it will also inevitably delay the much needed upgrading of our Nation's environmental infrastructure systems.

References Cited

Addington Environmental, Inc. c.1990. Addington Environmental Recycling Center. Ashland, KY.

Bush, George. 1992. Executive Order #12803: Infrastructure Privatization. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Press Secretary.

Christian, Samuel P. [Memorandum for Headquarters, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers]. 20 Dec. 1991.

Clarke, Jeanne Nienaber, and Daniel McCooL 1985. Staking Out the Terrain: Power Differentials Among Natural Resource Management Agencies. Albany:


References Cited (con•t)

State University Of NewYork Press.

Council of the City of Columbus, The. Solid Waste and Energy Generation.

Resolution No. 206X91. 04 Nov. 1991.

Dorn, Nancy P. [Memorandum for the Director of Civil Works]. 9 Sep. 1992.

Hatch, H.J. 1988. Our Vision. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lesko, Matthew. 1986. Information USA. New York: Viking and Penguin Books.

Office of the Federal Register. 1986. 1986-87 The U.S. Government Manual. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration.

Petulla, Joseph M. 1987. Environmental Protection in the United States: Industry•Agencies•Environmentalists. San Francisco Study Center.

Powers, Scott. Trash-burning plant: transfer accord is reached. Columbus Dispatch, 6 Oct. 1992, 1-2A.

____ . Separation plant would be 'traffic cop'. Columbus Dispatch, 7

Oct. 1992, 28.

Reilly, William K. [Memorandum to Regional Administrators of Public-Private

Partnership (P3) Initiative--Request for Demonstration Project Proposals]. 4 March 1991.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990a. Infrastructure Opportunities for

Privatization. Corps Facts. 1,8 (May 22). _____ . 1990b. Sponsor's Partnership Kit. Washington, D.C.

_____ . 1991. Guidelines for Market Feasibility Studies (MFS) Part of

Partners for Environmental Progress (PEP) Program. Washington, D.C. _____ . 1992. Final PEP Non Federal Generic RFP. Huntsville,

Alabama: Huntsville Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Decision-Makers Guide to Solid Waste Management. Washington,D.C.: EPA/530-SW-89-072.

Williams, Arthur E. [Memorandum for Major Subordinate Commands and District Commands: Partners for Environmental Progress Program, Fiscal

Year 1992 Selected Market Feasibility Studies and the Workshop]. 28 Jan. 1992.

Yeager, John. 1991. Fact Sheet for PEP Program: Franklin county Regional Solid Waste Management Authority and City of Columbus. Huntington, WV. ____ . 1992. Interview with the author, Huntington, WV. 3 Nov. 1992.

NOVEMBER 1992 21

PRESIDENT OF THE UNI"rED STATES

I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

I SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

I ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

(CIVIL WORKS)

I DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS

U.S. A.C.E. HEADQUARTERS

I CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

U.S. A.C.E. HEADQUARTERS

I OHIO RIVER DIVISION

CINCINNATI, OH

I HUNTINGTON DISTRICT

Figure 1. Civil Works Organization. (USACE 1990b).


~ CiviiVVorks Division/District Boundaries

-lfAYI~S

u ..... Cllf11Cf ~· ---

·.-O.t. ,_ ...,._,,'"'"".....,...,....,_..,. sount ATLANT1C

wW£R '\.. \ MISSISSIIPI VALLEY /~

c::).- Dmu ....... nc ._ ... " ..... ~ -~-

Figure 2. Civil Works Boundaries. (USACE 1990b).

REGULATIONS RESTRICTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN OHIO

ACT AGENCY MANDATE

CAA US EPA • limits emissions of individual pollutants into the air

(Clean Air Act)

CWA • regulates disposal facilities generating ash quench water,

(Clean Water Act) US EPA landfill leachate and surface water discharges

HB592 • reguires each solid waste district to develop a long-term

(Ohio HOUSE BILL 592) Ohio EPA master plan

PURPA • reguires investor-owned utilities to purchase power from (Public Utilities Regulatory US EPA cogenerators, thus guaranteeing a market and fair price for

said energy and Policy Act)

RCRA • establishes technical standards for the environmentally safe

SubtitleD US EPA

operation of solid waste disposal facilities; reguires monitoring

(Resource Conservation of water and gas leakage; restricts location, design, and

and Recovery Act) operation; mandates corrective action, and performance standards

SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act) US EPA • reguires the protection of current and future wellhead sites

Figure 4. Regulations Restricting Solid Waste Management. (USEP A 1989).

NOVEMBER 1992 23

DISTRICT ENGINEER I I

6 DIVISIONS

I

PLANNING DIVISION

I 4 BRANCHES

I

RESOURCE EVALUATION

I PRO .. IECTS

PARTNERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS

I I I

EASTERN KENTUCKY MARION COUNTY

CENTRAL OHIO

Figure 3. Huntington District Organization (a partial diagram).


Figure 5. Front-End-Separator. (Addington c.1990).

(g[g[MIJ~~[b @[M)~@

[p[g[p rp~~ufM[g~®[H]~WJ

SPONSOR I I CORPS I I

I I I

CITY OF CENTRAL OHIO PROJECT MANAGER I COLUMBUS SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY

I CONSULTANTS

PEP TEAM I I I

I R.W. BECK, INC. I MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. I Figure 6. Central Ohio PEP Partnership.

NOVEMBER 1992 25

T~~~ ~(C[H[E[D)(tJ[L[E

Month: APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER

Task: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Participant: I

~ I

~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ . . . • ! -.: I ! SPONSOR i ! l . ~ !

CORPS ! i ! I I i i i : ' ' ' ! i ! ! ! ! ! ' environmental i

~ ' ' i _.. E

~ ! I .. i

scientist I i ' I ~ __, l ! ! i ! .

communication ~ ~ ·- I Ji. I ! fat I . -~ specialist i ' i i ; • ; ' :

: - i ... I - : : II: city planner i i ! ! : .

I • : I

environmental

I - I ~ . -· engineer ! : ! ! i ! i -!

economist -.. • ! : : : : : I -.: ~ : ! !

contract spit -- E - ! i I I I ~ ! i i . ' ~ i I i I . il: graphic artist i f i

: • : ! i

computer sci I I i ! I I i .p ! i : ! ; . Tasks:

1 Day-long meeting to review goals and objectives 2 Data collection 3 Institutional Factors (Federal, State and local laws and regulations) 4 Analysis of alternatives (based on previously derived information) 5 Findings and conclusions meeting (target system for implementation) 6 Develop design criteria (produce Design Criteria Manual) 7 Review Meeting 8 Establish revenue potential 9 Evaluate privatization options

10 Analyze Return-on-Investment 11 Draft report 12 Review report 13 Final report 14 Prepare Request for Proposal Fr Facility tours, up to seven will be arranged by the Sponsor (all Corps members should be

involved, except the computer scientist)

Figure 7. Sponsor and Corps Task Schedule.

Documents

r?Afff~~RS FOR